“carp” shows how classy Cal fans can be by writing “f” in front of UCLA. You represent your school very well.

Show some class.

]]>By: bearclausehttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14019
Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:08:27 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14019There are basic problems with this data. A straight up 10-year average isn’t going to inform us on the trends. 1995-2004 would include the recruiting classes of four different head coaches. We know that academics took a back seat when Holmoe was in charge. We have evidence that it’s been a renewed emphasis under Tedford. The evidence doesn’t support an assumption that Tedford is continuing the mistakes of the Homoe era.
]]>By: Jasonhttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14018
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:46:01 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14018800 is way off buddy you get 450 or 500 for showing up and NOT ANSWERING. once you start answering you lose points, if you miss every question you get a 0. and really, the average sat score is 990 for heaven’s sakes, get off your high horses. that’s a whopping 6 points (a couple questions) higher. you look at gpa’s, to get from a 3.15 to a 2.93 you need one c to drop you around that much if you get it towards the end of your 4 years. this is just a ucla excuse for sucking. i’ll even concede OKAY FINE let’s say you guys actually try to get smart people on your team… then explain why the stanford football team this year, which is 10x smarter than you guys by your standards towards cal, is so much better than yours. even if you had your starters, who would amount to a mediocre qb, a decent rb, and a couple more. nothing season-changing.
]]>By: Leftcoasthttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14017
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:20:44 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14017Russ, I basically agree with you. Monty teams would come together quicker and peak in the mid-season due to his system and superior coaching.

Stanford’s highly ranked teams weren’t able to “find another gear” in the post season except that one glorious (for Stanford fans) final four season in ’98. This isn’t only coaching, or even mostly coaching. Many of the teams that beat us had more NBA bound players and often had that one super-athletic power forward who could give Stanford fits. But coaching was part of it.

My question – How successful will Monty be in adopting his system to the athletes he can get at cal? Is the NBA failure a harbinger of an inflexible style? Can he loosen the reins when he has players who thrive under a more free-wheeling style? I hope so because I like the man and will continue to like him when he’s wearing blue and gold – but it’s a reasonable question to ask.

]]>By: Russhttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14016
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:55:34 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14016lefty, I think you missed what really happened under Monty at Stanford. The reason they seemed to “peak” early is simple, they were so well coached that Monty got them to play consistently and over achieve during the regular season. But when they got into the NCAA tourney, other teams played at a higher level and Stanford usually wound up overseeded and losing.

The exact opposite of Steve Lavin at UCLA where they underachieved during the season(related to talent on the roster) and then would play harder in the tournament, make the sweet 16, and convince people like Dick Vitale that Lavin was a good coach. Reverse the coaches and UCLA would have done much better with Monty, and Stanford would have never made the tournament under Lavin.

monty can really coach, he was a horrible fit for the NBA but if he’s committed, he will turn Cal around.

“USC will continue to consider each applicant’s best SAT sub-scores, even if from different sittings. However, we will not combine sub-scores from the old SAT I and the new SAT.”

As you can see best sub score from different seatings means mix and match the highest scores to combine them. So if you have a 600 and 500 the first time, and a 500 and 600 the second time, at the other 9 Pac 10 schools your score is 1100, at USC it’s 1200.

With respect to subtracting out athletes and legacy students it will take some googling to get you a direct link but that is common knowledge around the Pac 10 schools. There’s some data on one of the Stanford sites related to percentages of special admits and the like which is the most recent place I saw where they pointed out that USC’s scores are misleading because they cherry pick by removing those students.

I do agree with your point I’m just saying that one of the reasons for the improvement in scores at USC, which USC and president Sample love to point out, is that they changed the way they count scores to artificially increase it. They are also admitting better students in general. You absolutely can get a great education at USC, but it’s not a coincidence that the GPA and test scores for the football and basketball team are so low, that’s part of how USC has sought to improve in both sports. Football has reached the point where it doesn’t matter, success recruits for them they’re so good they just reload.

Basketball post Bibby they simply went the shortcut route taking a bunch of marginal students or prepschool kids like Taj Gibson, Davon Jefferson, Leonard Washington, Angelo Johnson etc. They knew with Galen opening soon they wanted to have a better team on the court to improve attendance so Garrett basically gave Tim Floyd free run of the place. Now we see the result of that with NCAA investigators on campus because of the whole OJ Mayo situation.

]]>By: milohttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14014
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:45:54 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14014JB – I think leslie is a guy. 🙂
]]>By: Trojan Bretthttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14013
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:25:05 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14013Russ, do you have any links to that claim about USC not counting athletes/legacies and cherry-picking SAT portions? I only took the SAT once, so I don’t remember what they made/let you list for it on the application.

Realistically, the SAT numbers for the lower 9 schools might as well be the same. Any score in the 900-1000 range is the same level of stupidity and far below the normal standards for any of those schools. (Yeah, even ASU.) Even though Stanford’s is far below their university norm, they still deserve credit for being head and shoulders above everyone else in the Pac-10 and most (all?) Div 1-A football schools.

]]>By: Chrishttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14012
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:08:17 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14012The argument here is that with higher admission standards, it is more difficult to recruit the best players. Good players come from a spectrum of academic backgrounds. Let’s remember that these numbers are from the late-90’s to early 2000’s right. Isn’t that about the time UCLA was on an 8 game win streak against ‘SC? So UCLA had higher standards and better teams.
]]>By: anthonyhttp://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/06/pac-10-football-admissions-data-for-all-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-14011
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:16:36 +0000http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/?p=3121#comment-14011Just to point out: Berkeley has 3.5 times the undergraduate enrollment than Stanford. Were Berkeley to tighten its enrollment and cut 17,000 students, its average scores would look much like Stanford’s. Both are elite schools that do compete with Harvard and MIT and the like, but Berkeley’s mandate requires that it cast a wider net; the trade-off is a drag on average scores and is well worth it.

Another note: Stanford’s rugby team was too scared to play Cal in 2001 and refused to schedule a 2002 game–that is “domination”.